Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

TRoc,
The same thing has happened to me repeatedly. You are correct. Write your
post using MSWord or copy what you write before you post it so you can
repost it again. I think the problem is that the link "times out" when you are
authoring it and doesn't reconnect. For long posts, definitely do them offline in
Word.

LL

Hi LL,

Clarification please ... from the LL (et al?) point of view the difference in path length does not explain the variation in the amount of energy reaching various points after the slits ? .. therefore it must be 'something else' ? If it is 'something else' then C2 must be barking up the wrong tree ?
????
Best wishes,
-C2.

C2, Good Elf, LL, TR, "THEY" [hope you received the site?], jal, et al,

Good Elf, NO PROBLEM it is a nice feeling to be human, not sure you could ever offend me, well I am sure you could if you wanted, but not yet. BEST to you and family.

yquantum Got to go, have a great Holiday everyone....

C2,

Let me read his post throughout the course of the day most likely during 'TEA', will get back with you and give you my humble opinion. Best to you and yours.

ciao_
y

Hi C2 and All,

This is purely a speculative proposal on my part:

IMHO, TRoc's harmonic frequency mixing seems like the correct solution. I also
think that there are perhaps more subtleties involved with how the harmonics
are induced according to the phase relationships of the photons as they
interact with the geometry of the center post/slit(s) combinations, which changes their relative phase timing and energy relationship as they are "mixed".

What I am implying is that each photon enters the geometry of the slit(s) at a
different rotational phase angle in its 360 degree electro-magnetic propagation
rotational "cycle". Basically, each photon that enters that specific point in space is at a
different instantaneous phase angle. A photon could enter at a phase angle
of 0, 30, 45, 90, 180, 270 or any other portion of the 360 degree phase angle during
its phase "rotation". The photons "instantaneous" energy content, at that phase angle,
determines its new path trajectory after departing the mixing (doubling) vicinity of the slits.

I am proposing that its instantaneous phase angle is "doubled" (split) by the
resonating "mixing" action of the 2 slit/post geometry. Each 1/2 portion of the instantaneous phase angle is projected evenly on each side of the center energy point which represents
the + and - 90 degree high power points of the 360 degree electric field
sine wave phase relationship. This might explain the mirror symmetry on each side of
the projected center line of the single photon experiment. The projected centerline on the screen represents the postive and "negative" absolute values of
the full 360 degree sine wave.

The single slit waveform, of the single slit interference pattern (pulse), represents
the full wave 360 degree solution set of all phase angles. This is the absolute
values of the positive and negative 1/2's of the sine wave.

The double slit experiment doubles the number of solutions by splitting each 1/2
of the full sine wave on each side of the projected centerline. All values to the
left of the centerline represent the positive 1/2 of the sine wave and all values to
the right of the centerline represent the negative 1/2 of the sine wave.

As the phase timing signal that comes thru each slit is divided, and then recombined (mixed),
those instantaneous phase values that are "in phase" are constructively added,
those that are out of phase are destructively cancelled. Their relative
phase "timing" affects the dispersion and mixing. The phase timing is determined
by the geometry of the slit arrangement, which includes the individual slit width,
the gap spacing (center post) between the slits, and the wavelength of the
light.

JMHO. Other opinions, comments, disagreements, corrections, discussion
welcomed.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 15 2006, 08:15 PM

Hi Laserlight!
Maybe the calculation have already been done for this approach?
Since your approach involves dynamics, It might be possible to make a simulation as a particle-like photon bouncing around and "lighting up" the proper places.
( like a pin ball machine)
If not then it might shed some light on the debate of the "Afshar experiment "
See: http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
and
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/rebel.html
jal

Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", Fivedoughnut et al,

I would like to fall back on a defining moment in your thoughts please... If possible if you all answer this then you will get me for one on the same footing as yourselves. You all know just what I think on this matter already. I really do not want anyone having two cents either way, as part of your basic understanding of Physics, I want you to tell me what you actually really believe... what is the reality of your belief about our Universe.

Yquantum linked this page and it gives a highly illuminating view (philosophically at least but there is indeed much more for you to think about there too...) as to the nature of this problem .... deep down.

Yquantum said this... (being very careful this time and not being offensive and making a number of "ad libs"... )...
Yquantum on Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later
There he referenced this page...
Does Light Exist Between Events?

I ask all my colleagues here that the basis of all sensible and sensate force in our Universe and the source of interference and resonance in your TV antenna and down into the realm of the sub-atomic... Does Light Exist Between Events? Really are there any waves at all? That is of light itself...

Please read this and tell me your thoughts so I may see how much people deny the reality of the quantum having and being our "universal" existence. Perhaps what you are saying is you also do not exist?... Is this the case since all perceived solidity and forces in the universe come from the photon and all light and the persistence of nature our World and the events around us may all be a dream? Just do not drift off into "Universes simply created inside a Computer" somewhere as the ultimate explanation for our reality since that merely shifts the problem from "our Universe" to another for the reality?

Then what you have accepted is this...

Nothing anywhere else in our Universe to describe it... or in any other universe either. Tell me this is so! No mechanism, no thing to connect events and underneath our spacetime .... if we were to make an incision ... still nothing??? This OK with you?

I do not want to hear about "particles" either since there are none between events... at least no quantum acceptance of them in that interval. No descriptions to cover this situation so in the end no Physics either... Right!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 16 2006, 01:41 AM

Hi Good Elf and All,

I'm not sure if you were addressing me directly or soliciting comments from everyone.

I will read what you requested and comment accordingly, however I am
perplexed at the ambiguity of what you are actually asking for. Please
clarify what you are asking as a direct question(s) and I will try to address
specific issues.

I think the underlying complexity of the problems/questions about how the dual
slit experiment "works" must be addressed individually but, when assembled
sequentially/serially, must give an accurate accounting and proper solution.
There are many variables in the experiment. Perhaps not all of them have
been accounted for. Each DSE experiment that has been presented yielded the
same basic "cursory" classical summary of results, but there was no "in depth"
detailed analysis provided to describe or model events transpiring at the micro
level.

Each "interaction point" (variables) of the experiment must be analyzed and
conceptually described to insure an accurate and complete "story" in the sequence
of events. The "story" must always result in the same predictable ending,
once the variables and interactions are correctly modeled. The results must also
pass "peer" review and provide correct answers to newly posed questions.

Best Regards,
LL

SO SCIENCE IS UNCERTAIN OF SOME THINGS.
"GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE."

WHAT WE KNOW ONLY THE ODDS OF GOD KNOWS THE OUTCOME.

Nick your mind is so open - so open that ideas simply pass through it. Do you just say stupid stuff to get your post count up or do you enjoy annoying people. Why don't you just go to a forum where people talk about god and all that stuff, but all you are doing here is start arguments. I have no problem with people believing in god but when all you do is end a scientific debate by saying something stupid then when you have been proved wrong say something about god that we can obviously not prove wrong, and even if we do you will go "GOD MADE IT". And please stop with the caps, just stop there is no reason.

ATHEISTS DON'T BELONG IN SCIENCE.

Everyone belongs in science, except those who choose not to believe it.

Nick,

Nietzsche was right.


LL

Hi Laserlight,

This applies to everyone and none. It is simply a question to see if we understand what it is we are believing. If people do not want to put their point of view as Nick seems to be doing, they are not compelled to think or to do anything at all. I am only interested in people who are thinking for themselves, not delegating that responsibility to other authorities...

Throughout this discussion you seem to be pretty open to ideas. We do not need to agree on any particular topic but as an elf I feel compelled to challenge peoples beliefs in some way. There are some who are forthright in challenging much established authority. I do not say they are entirely right but at least in Australian terms they are "having a go". Take for instance the recent article on New Scientist on Brian Josephson, you might call him a crank but he has that "gong" to hang around his neck to tilt at all the windmills he wants now.

I will quote a little from a respected source but I wonder if you will respect him after this?? I will include only about 50% of this article on account of copyright but you should all read 100% of it

Please forgive this excerpt but I think this is important that all are able to understand where some thinkers are being thwarted by convention and by something that is not that scientific when it comes down to it.

No obligations but I entreat all of you to think about your own stance carefully and to not be a "paradox in your own mind".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 16 2006, 06:17 AM

Well stated oh wise Elf ..... appeals to my crank sensibilities.